Commission investigations and inquiries may be originated upon the request of the President, Congress, governmental agencies, or the Attorney General; upon referrals by the courts; upon complaint by members of the public; or by the Commission upon its own initiative. The Commission has delegated to the Director, Deputy Directors, and Assistant Directors of the Bureau of Competition, the Director, Deputy Directors, and Associate Directors of the Bureau of Consumer Protection and, the Regional Directors and Assistant Regional Directors of the Commission's regional offices, without power of redelegation, limited authority to initiate investigations. The Director of the Bureau of Competition has also been delegated, without power of redelegation, authority to open investigations in response to requests pursuant to an agreement under the International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act, 15 U.S.C. 6201 et seq., if the requests do not ask the Commission to use process. Before responding to such a request, the Bureau Director shall transmit the proposed response to the Secretary and the Secretary shall notify the Commission of the proposed response. If no Commissioner objects within three days following the Commission's receipt of such notification, the Secretary shall inform the Bureau Director that he or she may proceed.
[48 FR 41374, Sept. 15, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 53304, Dec. 31, 1985; 65 FR 67259, Nov. 9, 2000]
Notes of Decisions
Soundboard Ass'n v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 888 F.3d 1261 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
· cites it 2× “16 C.F.R. § 2.1 (“The Commission has delegated to the Director, Deputy Directors, and Assistant Directors of the Bureau of Competition, the Director, Deputy Directors, and Associate Directors of the Bureau of Consumer Protection and, the Regional Directors and Assistant Regional…”
Retail Ventures, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins., 691 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. 2012).
“Plaintiffs respond that its general liability insurer covered its defense costs for all "legal proceedings,” and that the claim in this case was limited to the attorney fees associated with the security breach itself and the FTC’s “nonpublic inquiry.”
Am. Motors Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 601 F.2d 1329 (6th Cir. 1979).
“In implementing these statutory powers, the FTC has adopted regulations and established procedures which: 1) allow the agency itself to initiate investigations, 16 C.F.R. § 2.1 (1978); 2) require that: “Any person under investigation compelled or requested to furnish information…”
Stand. Oil Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 475 F. Supp. 1261 (N.D. Ind. 1979).
“And, as set forth by the Nonadjudicative Procedures contained in Part 2 of the FTC Rules, 16 C.F.R. §§ 2.1 , et seq., persons involved in investigative hearings have only limited rights to object and no right of cross-examination.”
Y & Y Popcorn Supply Co. v. ABC VENDING Corp., 263 F. Supp. 709 (E.D. Pa. 1967).
“See FTC Rules of Practice 16 C.F.R. §§ 2.1 , 2.2. 8 . It does, however, seem unmistakably clear that the FTC order found and determined the Commission’s jurisdiction and the facts upon which jurisdiction is grounded.”
Kunc v. ARA Servs., Inc., 414 F. Supp. 809 (W.D. Okla. 1976).
“The FTC investigation procedures and the FTC Consent Judgment procedures are both set out in Part 2 of the FTC Rules of Practice codified as 16 C.F.R. §§ 2.1 et seq. The specific provision of 15 U.”
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., NV v. FTC, 515 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 2008).
“§ 46 ; 16 C.F.R. § 2.1 . CB&I initially agreed to delay executing the merger to accommodate the Government's investigation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.